The Social-Chauvinists’ Sophisms

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 41, May 1, 1915.

      Published according to the text inSotsial-Demokrat.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages183-187.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

NasheDyelo (No.1, 1915), which is published in
    Petrograd by the liquidators, is bringing out a translation ofInternationalism and War,a pamphlet by Kautsky. At the same time,
    Mr. A. Potresov says he does not agree with Kautsky who; in his opinion,
    acts now like an “advocate” (i.e., a pleader for German
    social-chauvinism, who denies recognition of the Franco-Russian brand of the
    species), now like a “judge” (i.e., a Marxist who tries to apply
    the Marxist method without prejudice).

Inactual fact, both Mr. A. Potresov and Kautsky have betrayed Marxism in
    the main issues, defending as they do national liberal-labour policies, by
    using obvious sophisms. Mr. A. Potresov is distracting his readers’
    attention from the fundamentals, while arguing with Kautsky over
    details. According to Mr. Potresov, the “solution” of the
    problem of the attitude of the British and the French
    “democracies” towards the war (the author is referring to
    working-class democracy) is “on the whole a good solution”
 (p. 69); these democracies, he says, “have acted correctly”,
    although their solution has been, not so conscious as “in accord with
    a national solution, through a happy coincidence”.

Themeaning of these words is clear. Under Anglo-French cover,
    Mr. A. Potresov, is defending Russian chauvinism, and justifying the
    patriotic tactics used by the socialists of the Triple Entente. Mr. Potresov
    argues against Kautsky, not in the way a Marxist should argue against a
    chauvinist, but like a Russian chauvinist against a German counterpart. This
    is an old and threadbare method; it should, however, be noted that
    Mr. A. Potresov disguises and confuses in every possible way the clear and
    simple import of his words.

Itlepoints on which Mr. A. Potresov and Kautskyagreeare the
      gist of the matter. For instance, they agree that: “the present-day
      proletariat’s internationalism is compatible with defence of
      country” (K. Kautsky, p. 34 in the German edition of his
      pamphlet). Mr. A. Potresov speaks of the special situation of a country
      “that has been subjected to an attack”. “The people fear
      nothing more than an enemy invasion...”, Kautsky
      writes. “If the inhabitants of a country see the cause of war, not
      in their own government, but in the evil designs of a neighbouring
      state-and what government does not attempt to inculcate such a view upon
      the masses through the press, etc.!—then... the unanimous desire to
      defend the borders against the enemy flares up in the entire population....The infuriated mob would kill those who would attempt to
      hamper the dispatch of armies to the borders” (K. Kautsky, p. 33 in
      the article of 1911).

Thisis a would-be Marxist defence of the fundamental idea of all
    social-chauvinists.

Asearly as 1911, Kautsky saw very clearly that the government (and the
    bourgeoisie) woulddeceive“the people, the population, the
    mob” by placing the blame on the “evil designs” of another
    country. The question arises whether support for such deception-whether by
    voting for war credits or by speeches, articles, etc.-is compatible with
    internationalism and socialism, or whether it is tantamount to a national
    liberal-labour policy! Kautsky is behaving like a most shameless
    “advocate”, like the worst kind of sophist, when he substitutes
    for this question another one, namely, whether it is reasonable for
    “individuals” to “hamper the dispatch of armies”, in
    the teeth of the will of the majority of a people that have been deceived by
    their government. That is not the point at issue. That is not the gist of
    the matter. Deceived petty bourgeois must be dissuaded, and the deception
    made clear to them. It is sometimes necessary to go with them to the
    battleground and be able to wait until they have been sobered by the
    experience of war. Not this is under discussion but the question whether it
    is permissible for socialists to participate in the bourgeoisie’s
    deception of the “people”. Kautsky and Potresov justify such
    deception, though they know perfectly well that the guilt for the
    imperialist war of 1914 falls equally onthe “evil designs” of the governments and the bourgeoisie of
      all the “Great” Powers-Britain and France, Germany and
      Russia. This is clearly stated, for instance, in the Basle resolution of
      1912.

Therecan he no doubt that the “people”, i.e., the mass of
    petty bourgeois and part of the deceived workers, believe in the bourgeois
    fable of the enemy’s “evil designs”. Yet it is the duty of
    Social-Democrats to combat this deception, not support it. Long before the
    war, all Social-Democrats in all countries said thatanyGreat
    Power strives in fact to build up and extend its domination over the
    colonies, oppress small nations, etc. This was reiterated at Basle. The war
    is being waged for the partitioning of colonies and for the plunder of other
    lands; thieves have fallen out, and i is a brazen bourgeois lie to claim
    that, at this particular moment, some thief is getting the worse of it; to
    do so is to present the thieves’ interests as those of the people or
    the fatherland. We must speak the truth to the “people”, who are
    suffering from the war; that truth is that no defence can be put up against
    sufferings of wartime unless the government and the bourgeoisie of every
    belligerent country are overthrown. To defend Belgium bymeansof
    throttling Galicia or Hungary is no “defence of the
    fatherland”.

However,Marx himself, who condemned wars, as, for instance, in 1854-76,
    took sides with one of the belligerents when, despite the will of the
    socialists, wat had become a fact. That is the main contention and the chief
    trump card in Kautsky’s pamphlet. It is also the stand of
    Mr. Potresov, who by “internationalism” understands finding out
    the success of which sidein the war is more desirable or less
    harmful from the standpoint of the interests of the proletariat, not in a
    particular country butthe world over.The war, he says, is being
    conducted by governments and the bourgeoisie; it is for the proletariat to
    decidewhichgovernment’s victory presents the least danger
    to the workers of the world.

Thesophistry of this reasoning consists in a bygone period of history
    being substituted for the present. The following were the main features of
    the old wars referred to by Kautsky: (1) they dealt with the problems of
    bourgeois-democratic reforms and the overthrow of absolutism or foreign
    oppression; (2) the objective prerequisites for a socialist revolution hadnot yet matured, andprior to the war,no socialist could speak of
    utilising it to “hasten the downfall of capitalism”, as the
    Stuttgart (1907) and Basle (1912) resolutions do; (3) in the countries ofneitherof the belligerent groups were there any socialist parties
    of any strength or mass appeal, and tested in the struggle.

Inshort, it is not surprising that Marx and the Marxists confined
    themselves to determiningwhichbourgeoisie’s victory would
    be more harmless to (or more favourable to) the world proletariat, at a time
    when one could not speak of a general proletarian movement against the
    governments and the bourgeoisie of all the belligerent countries.

Longbefore the war and for the first time in world history, the
    socialists of all the countries now engaged in hostilities gathered together
    and declared that they would make use of the war “to hasten the
    downfall of capitalism” (the Stuttgart resolution, 1907). In
    other words, they recognised that objective conditions had matured for that
    “hastening of the downfall”, i. e., for a socialist
    revolution. That is to say, they threatened the governments with a
    revolution. In Basle (1912) they said the same thing in still clearer terms,
    referring to the Commune and to October-December
1906,[1]i. e., civil
    war.

Whenwar broke out, the socialists who had threatened the governments
    with revolution and had called upon the proletariat to bring about that
    revolution began to refer to what had happened half a century before, and
    today are justifying socialist support for the governments and the
    bourgeoisie! The Marxist Gorter is absolutely right in comparing, in his
    Dutch brochure,Imperialism, the World War and Social-Democracy
 (p. 84),“radicals” of the Kautsky type with the liberals
    of1848,who were courageous in word and traitors in deed.

Fordecades, a conflict between revolutionary Social-Democratic and the
    opportunist elements was developing within European socialism. The crisis
    has come to a head. The abscess has burst as a result of the war. Most
    official parties have yielded to the national liberal-labour politicians,
    who defend the privileges of their “own” bourgeoisie, andthe latter’sprivilege to possess colonies, oppress small
    nations, etc. Both Kautsky and Potresov defend and justifythe national liberal-labour policy instead of exposing it to the
      proletariat. That is the essence of the social-chauvinists’
      sophisms.

Mr.A. Potresov has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag by his
    assertion that “the Stuttgart formula was untenable in
    principle” (p. 79). What of that? To the proletariat, open renegades
    are better than covert ones. Carry on, Mr. A. Potresov; to repudiate
    Stuttgart and Basle is the more honest course.

Kautsky,the diplomat, is more wily than Mr. A. Potresoy; he does not
    repudiate Stuttgart and Basle, He merely—“merely”!—quotes
    the Basic Manifesto,omitting allreferences to revolution! Can it
    he that the censor has been using his blue pencil oi both Potresov and
    Kautsky? Potresov and Kautsky seem ready to speak of revolution when that is
    permitted by the censor.

Letus hope that Potresov, Kautsky and their adherents will propose that
    the Stuttgart and the Basle resolutions he replaced by something like the
    following: “Should war break out despite our efforts, we must decide,
    from the standpoint of the world proletariat, what is most to its advantage:
    that India be plundered by Britain or by Germany; that the Negroes of Africa
    be taught the use of “firewater” and pillaged by the French or
    by the Germans; that Turkey be oppressed by the Austro-Germans or by the
    AngloFranco-Russian alliance; that the Germans should throttle Belgium or
    the Russians, Galicia; that China be partitioned by the Japanese or by the
    Americans”, etc.

[1]Thisrefers
    to the October all-Russia political strike and the December armed uprising
    in Moscow, in 1905.